Four New York Times reporters are about to learn that a press badge does not make a federal grand jury subpoena disappear.

The Justice Department has ordered the journalists to testify in a classified-information leak investigation tied to reporting about President Trump’s new Air Force One.

The Times immediately framed the move as an attack on press freedom. DOJ says that gets the story exactly backward: the reporters are not the targets, and the alleged leakers are.

Here is how the newspaper announced the subpoenas:

The Associated Press reports that the subpoenas went to Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt. All four worked on the paper’s reporting about alleged security concerns involving the Boeing 747 donated by Qatar and converted for presidential use.

ADVERTISEMENT

The legal demands call for the reporters to appear before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week. Some of the subpoenas were delivered by federal agents directly to the journalists’ homes, an unusually dramatic step that the Times is already invoking as evidence of intimidation.

The subpoenas were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to discuss the matter, according to a person cited by the AP. The investigation appears focused on whether someone inside the government unlawfully disclosed classified or national-security information.

The disputed reporting claimed the Secret Service urged President Trump to leave a NATO summit in Turkey aboard an older Air Force One because of security concerns involving the new jet. The White House denied that the aircraft has security shortcomings and said officials use distraction and misdirection to protect the president against threats.

That distinction is the heart of this story.

The First Amendment protects a free press. It does not hand government employees a license to pass classified security information to their favorite newsroom, especially when the information may involve the safety of the president and the aircraft that serves as an airborne command center.

Nor does a subpoena prove the Times did anything criminal. It means prosecutors believe the reporters may have information relevant to a grand jury investigation, and the newspaper will have an opportunity to challenge those demands in court.

The government’s answer was blunt:

The Justice Department’s own News Media Policy says compulsory legal process involving newsgathering is an extraordinary measure, not a standard investigative practice. It describes subpoenas aimed at reporters as a last resort when the information is essential to a successful investigation or prosecution.

Attorney General authorization is generally required before prosecutors issue a subpoena to a member of the news media. The written request must explain why the information is essential, describe efforts to obtain voluntary cooperation and show how the demand will be drawn as narrowly as possible.

ADVERTISEMENT

The policy also says investigators should first make reasonable attempts to obtain the information from alternative sources. Voluntary negotiations may be skipped when the attorney general determines they could threaten the integrity of the investigation, cause grave harm to national security or create an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Classified-information cases are specifically addressed. A department or agency head may ask the attorney general to authorize subpoenas to reporters during an investigation into unauthorized disclosure of national-defense or classified material, but the demand should still provide reasonable notice and minimize intrusion into unrelated newsgathering.

In other words, the Justice Department cannot honestly treat this like a routine fishing expedition. Its own rules require a high bar, senior approval and a tightly focused demand.

But the Times cannot honestly pretend that every inquiry into a classified leak is automatically an attack on the Constitution, either. National-security laws do not vanish when a government secret reaches a powerful newspaper.

The development was summarized here:

The Associated Press reported on June 23 that these subpoenas may be only the opening move in a much larger legal fight. DOJ previously issued grand jury subpoenas to reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, then withdrew them after the news organizations pushed back.

The government never publicly explained why it reversed course in those cases. One subpoena sought testimony from Washington Post national-security reporter Ellen Nakashima, while reporters at the Journal also received demands connected to an undisclosed grand jury matter.

Those earlier disputes came amid a broader leak crackdown. In January, FBI agents searched the home of another Washington Post reporter while investigating a Pentagon contractor accused of mishandling classified documents, seizing electronic devices that the newspaper later fought to recover.

The Times can now ask a judge to quash or narrow the new subpoenas, and no one should assume the reporters will simply disclose confidential sources. Still, the prior withdrawals do not make the current demands meaningless; they show that prosecutors are willing to test how far their leak investigation can go.

ADVERTISEMENT

The public deserves two things at once: a press free to investigate the government and a government that protects genuine national-security secrets from unlawful disclosure.

DOJ will have to prove it followed its own demanding rules. The Times will have to make its First Amendment case before a judge; its public statement will not decide the dispute.

And somewhere behind this clash is the question the Manhattan grand jury appears determined to answer: who handed over the protected information, and did that person break federal law?

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.